Ex Parte Pugel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 26, 2012

10549253 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL ANTHONY PUGEL, DOUGLAS EDWARD LANKFORD, JOHN JOSEPH CURTIS, KEITH REYNOLDS WEHMEYER, MIKE ARTHUR DERRENBERGER, TERRY WAYNE LOCKRIDGE, and ANDREW ERIC BOWYER ____________________ Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges. WARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-17 and 20-28, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants invented an apparatus and method for distributing audio, video, and/or data signals in a household or business dwelling. See Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with certain disputed limitations italicized: 1. A server apparatus (20), comprising: receiving means (21) for receiving broadcast signals; first processing means (28, 29) for generating first analog signals responsive to said received signals; second processing means (31-33) for generating second analog signals responsive to said received signals, wherein the first analog signals have a different encoding than the second analog signals, and said first analog signals are provided to a first client device (50) via a transmission medium connecting said server apparatus (20) and said first client device (50) in response to a first request signal requesting a first desired processed analog signal by identifying a first program and further wherein said second analog signals are provided to a second client device (60) via said transmission medium connecting said server apparatus (20) and said second client device (60) in response to a second request signal requesting a second desired processed analog signal by identifying a second program; and control means (35) for detecting available frequency bands on said transmission medium, wherein said available frequency bands are used to provide said first analog signals to said first client device (50) and to provide said second analog signals to said second client device (60), and 1 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Oct. 6, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 22, 2009). Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 3 means for causing said transmission medium to be shared between said processed analog signals and other broadcast signals distributed over said transmission medium. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: McCalley Thomas Dufour Bucher US 5,191,410 US 5,920,801 US 6,049,717 US 6,678,737 B1 Mar. 2, 1993 July 6, 1999 Apr. 11, 2000 Jan. 13, 2004 REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13, 16, 20-24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas and Bucher. Ans. 3-12. (2) Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas, Bucher, and McCalley. Ans. 13-17. (3) Claims 9, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas, Bucher, and Dufour. Ans. 18-19. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER THOMAS AND BUCHER CLAIMS 1-5, 8, 10-13, 16, 20-24, AND 27 The Examiner finds that Thomas discloses every recited feature of claim 1 except “that the first analog signals have a different encoding than the second analog signals.” Ans. 4. The Examiner cites Bucher as teaching this limitation in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. Appellants argue that “Bucher relates to a network arrangement which transmits signals in plural display formats,” but fails to disclose generating signals having different encodings. Br. 11. Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 4 ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that the cited references collectively would have taught or suggested that “the first analog signals have a different encoding than the second analog signals”? ANALYSIS On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. The Examiner finds that “Bucher discloses a home network in which multiple video signals being transmitted to client devices have different encodings (claims 27 and 32).” Ans. 4. Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does Bucher generate signals having different encodings.” Br. 11. Contrary to the Appellants’ arguments, Bucher discloses generating signals having different encodings, and, in fact, the purpose of the invention disclosed in Bucher is to provide a “method for displaying images and video of different formats at various display devices within a home or business.” Ans. 4; Bucher, col. 1, ll. 42-44. The portions of Bucher relied upon in the Examiner’s rejection disclose a “home network appliance” that includes a “means for performing display processing,” which “is required to modify a display format of the requested data into one or more particular display formats.” Bucher, claim 27. For example, the cited portions of Bucher disclose that “processing the requested data includes modifying high definition television content for display on a standard resolution television set.” Bucher, claim 32. The “network appliance” in Bucher is disclosed as receiving a variety of input video signals and implements a “high power encoder/decoder 148” to process those video Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 5 signals for display on multiple display devices in the home. Bucher, col. 6, ll. 24-34. In one embodiment more particularly described in Bucher, “[t]he home network appliances of the invention can transcode multimedia data, such as MPEG data” through the use of the “high-power encoder/decoder 148.” Bucher, col. 6, ll. 44 and 51-52. For instance, spatial transcoding can be useful where high definition television data is to be viewed on a standard definition television set. Such transcoding is conducted on MPEG video data by performing a full MPEG decoding on the data, resizing the data, and performing a full MPEG encoding on the data. Bucher, col. 7, ll. 3-8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position that Bucher teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 regarding a first analog signal having a different encoding than a second analog signal. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and dependent claims 2-5 and 8 not separately argued with particularity. Although independent claims 10 and 20 are mentioned separately in Appellants’ Brief, Appellants argue that these claims are allowable on the same grounds as claim 1, namely failure to disclose a different encoding. Br. 12. Accordingly, we not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 20, and dependent claims 11-13, 16, 21-24, and 27 not separately argued with particularity. CLAIMS 6, 7, 14, 15, 25, and 26 Appellants argue that dependent claims 6 and 7, rejected as unpatentable in view of Thomas, Bucher, and McCalley, are patentable Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 6 because McCalley fails to “show or suggest generation of signals having different encodings.” Br. 11. Whether McCalley discloses signals having different encodings is irrelevant, because the Examiner does not rely upon McCalley2 for this point, but rather relies on Bucher as discussed above. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 7, and claims 14, 15, 25, and 26 not separately argued with particularity. CLAIMS 9, 17, and 28 Appellants argue that dependent claim 9, rejected as unpatentable in view of Thomas, Bucher, and Dufour, is patentable because Dufour fails to “show or suggest generation of signals having different encodings.” Br. 12. Whether Dufour discloses signals having different encodings is irrelevant, because the Examiner does not rely upon Dufour3 for this point but rather relies on Bucher as discussed above. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9, and claims 17 and 28 not separately argued with particularity. 2 The Examiner relies upon McCalley as disclosing a limitation recited in dependent claims 6 and 7 regarding an “A/V processing means for processing digital transport stream to generate analog baseband signals; and modulating means for modulating said analog baseband signals to generate analog signals.” Ans. 13. 3 The Examiner relies upon Dufour as disclosing a limitation recited in dependent claim 9 regarding a control means that “detects said available frequency bands based on a user input which selects said available frequency bands.” Ans. 18. Appeal 2010-006415 Application 10/549,253 7 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 and 20-28 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED gvw